How Will Quebec React to Parliament Near-Shutout?

[jbg]

This past election has produced, for the first time since the 1917 Borden Coalition election, a majority government whose caucus does not depend on Quebec MP's for it's majority position. The CPC has 167 MP's, with 155 being needed for a majority. Only 6 or 7, I forget which, are from Quebec. And the PM is, depending on how you define him, either an Albertan or Ontarian, whose first language is definitely English. Compared to other PM's he has shown a relatively minor interest in pandering to Quebec.

Think about it. Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau and St. Laurent were Quebeckers, and had large Quebec contingents as part of their caucuses. Diefenbaker and King, though not from Quebec, depended upon their Quebec MP's for majority status, at least for most of their mandates. Before Borden, Laurier was of course a Quebecker. Thus, with the exception of Borden, the current situation is unique in modern times.

Switch screens to the next Quebec election, due within, I believe, the next 18 months. Quebec's Liberals are, from all appearances, unpopular. How will the likely PQ government react? I doubt they'll attempt a "Clarity Act" referendum. Will they just sit their and govern, or do something extreme?

Thoughts?

[punked]

Joe Clark had 2 Quebec MPs in 1979.

[jbg]

Joe Clark had 2 Quebec MPs in 1979.

Did Joe Who hold a majority mandate?

[punked]

Did Joe Who hold a majority mandate?

Nope but Harper wont do anything to Quebec he holds a majority by 10 seats 6 of them are in Quebec and 4 more in francophone NB ridings. He isn't that dumb.

[jbg]

Nope but Harper wont do anything to Quebec he holds a majority by 10 seats 6 of them are in Quebec and 4 more in francophone NB ridings. He isn't that dumb.

Harper may be many things but dumb isn't one of them. The issue more is whether Quebec elites will panic, and promulgate a UDI (unilateral declaration of independence). In other words try to undo the Plains of Abraham.

[Benz]

Think about it. Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau and St. Laurent were Quebeckers, and had large Quebec contingents as part of their caucuses.

Not Chretien, for the record. He had just few enough support in Québec to get its majority but, there was a clear majority for the Bloc the whole time. Unlike Mulroney that got the majority in Québec.

Diefenbaker and King, though not from Quebec, depended upon their Quebec MP's for majority status, at least for most of their mandates. Before Borden, Laurier was of course a Quebecker. Thus, with the exception of Borden, the current situation is unique in modern times.

Indeed. I wonder if Harper will be cautious or if he will slip onto a banana peel.

Switch screens to the next Quebec election, due within, I believe, the next 18 months. Quebec's Liberals are, from all appearances, unpopular. How will the likely PQ government react? I doubt they'll attempt a "Clarity Act" referendum. Will they just sit their and govern, or do something extreme?

Thoughts?

Even I am not sure. Pauline Marois is hard to read. She looks like someone trying to float on a wave rather than creating a stream. So it also depends on what will Harper do. But I expect Marois to play the Beau Risque card or something like that. The Québécois are giving a chance to the federalism by supporting Layton but Harper won the big picture. Marois will probably take advantage of this by sending an offer to Harper because she knows he won't be interested at all and that will bring more fuel to the sovereignty project.

[punked]

Harper may be many things but dumb isn't one of them. The issue more is whether Quebec elites will panic, and promulgate a UDI (unilateral declaration of independence). In other words try to undo the Plains of Abraham.

Why would they? I am sure Harper will work with Jack to create winning conditions for Quebec that both Quebec and the rest of Canada can be happy with.

[Benz]

Harper may be many things but dumb isn't one of them. The issue more is whether Quebec elites will panic, and promulgate a UDI (unilateral declaration of independence). In other words try to undo the Plains of Abraham.

No. Harper would have to do something extremely ordinary stupid for that to happen. The majority of sovereignist are not in favor of UDI without serious exceptional reasons.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Benz

[Machjo]

This past election has produced, for the first time since the 1917 Borden Coalition election, a majority government whose caucus does not depend on Quebec MP's for it's majority position. The CPC has 167 MP's, with 155 being needed for a majority. Only 6 or 7, I forget which, are from Quebec. And the PM is, depending on how you define him, either an Albertan or Ontarian, whose first language is definitely English. Compared to other PM's he has shown a relatively minor interest in pandering to Quebec.

Think about it. Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau and St. Laurent were Quebeckers, and had large Quebec contingents as part of their caucuses. Diefenbaker and King, though not from Quebec, depended upon their Quebec MP's for majority status, at least for most of their mandates. Before Borden, Laurier was of course a Quebecker. Thus, with the exception of Borden, the current situation is unique in modern times.

Switch screens to the next Quebec election, due within, I believe, the next 18 months. Quebec's Liberals are, from all appearances, unpopular. How will the likely PQ government react? I doubt they'll attempt a "Clarity Act" referendum. Will they just sit their and govern, or do something extreme?

Thoughts?

My own Conservative MP in Ottawa-Orleans in Ontario is also a French-speaker, and he'd made it clear to me that he supports the Official Languages Act. I'd like to go to territorial bilingualism as was suggested by Scott Reid, which would save much money, but many Conservatives, even outside of Quebec, are staunch supporters of it. Remember too that many Ontario members of the Conservative caucus are red tories. It's not as simple as it seems.

[jbg]

I'd like to go to territorial bilingualism as was suggested by Scott Reid, which would save much money, but many Conservatives, even outside of Quebec, are staunch supporters of it.

What is "territorial bilingualism"? Do you mean in Nunavut, NWT and Yukon?

[Machjo]

What is "territorial bilingualism"? Do you mean in Nunavut, NWT and Yukon?

It's explained in Reid's book Lament for a Notion (available in public libaries).

Essentially, it would mean that Federal government services would be required to operate bilingually in both French and English only in local communities where there is a significant number of both French and English speakers; everywhere else, they could operate in either or, depending on which is more prevailent.

According to the link below, the current system requiring bilingual services coast to coast to coast regardless of local demographics costs about 1.6 billion dollars a year:

http://www.fraseramerica.org/commerce.web/product_files/OfficialLanguagePolicies_US.pdf

As for Nunavut, providing federal services in the local indigenous languages there makes sense. Providing bilingual services in Calgary or Quebec city is ridiculous.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Machjo

[jbg]

As for Nunavut, providing federal services in the local indigenous languages there makes sense. Providing bilingual services in Calgary or Quebec city is ridiculous.

What about Monteal? Ottawa? Or cities like Vancouver or Toronto where languages other than Canadian or French dominate in large pockets?

[Machjo]

What about Monteal? Ottawa? Or cities like Vancouver or Toronto where languages other than Canadian or French dominate in large pockets?

Well, first off, there is no such language as Canadian. And as far as I'm concerned, only the predominant local language ought to matter. In most of Canada, that is either English or French. A French speaker should not expect services in French in Vancouver any more than an English-speaker ought to expect English-language services in Quebec City. It's just too expensive.

[Machjo]

As for bilingual federal services in Montreal, that's reasonable. Ottawa? Debatable. Calgary or Val-d'or? Waste of money.

In grey areas such as Ottawa, I suppose we could be nice and provide bilingual services there too. But where one language clearly dominates, bilingualism ought not be mandatory.

[ninjandrew]

What about Monteal? Ottawa? Or cities like Vancouver or Toronto where languages other than Canadian or French dominate in large pockets?

Also, the other languages spoken in Vancouver aren't national languages.

[jbg]

Also, the other languages spoken in Vancouver aren't national languages.

Indeed, that's the problem with any legislated or politicized language policy. That is one of the reasons why the U.S., Australia and the U.K. get along well without any official language.

[Smallc]

That is one of the reasons why the U.S., Australia and the U.K. get along well without any official language.

And Canada gets along well with one. Quite rankly, you're kidding yourself if you don't think that significant divisions exist in the US, similar to what exists in Canada.

[Molly]

As for Nunavut, providing federal services in the local indigenous languages there makes sense. Providing bilingual services in Calgary or Quebec city is ridiculous.

Have you ever been to Calgary? While it's not the global mix that

Toronto is, folks from all over have settled there. It has been a boomtown and a frontier for a good long while.

I've certainly done business in English in Quebec city, too, and once-unilingual friends have moved there.

This is a nation of in-clusion, not exclusion. While it burns my buttons to be smugly greeted in French first and preferentially in areas where weeks, months, even years could go by without encountering a French speaker, I value the confidence Canadians may have that they can deal with their government in the official language of their choice, whenever and wherever they have dealings with their government. $1.6B is a tiny price to pay for that.

(I've no doubt, though, that the universal service could be provided for much less money, if it is spent sensibly.)

[jbg]

And Canada gets along well with one. Quite frankly, you're kidding yourself if you don't think that significant divisions exist in the US, similar to what exists in Canada.

Yes. I agree. Canada would get "along quite well with one", albeit with bi-lingual accomodations, maybe French first, in Quebec. This worked well prior to 1974, when language-based bigotry started in Quebec on an official basis (such bigotry started earlier on an unofficial basis).

Edited May 12, 2011 by jbg

[Keepitsimple]

One of the contributing reasons for the fall of the Bloc has gone mostly uncovered in the media. That is.....the Harper government gave Duceppe very little of substance to complain about. Harper respects Provincial juristictions - much more so than the paternalistic approach of Liberal governments - which served to inflame Quebec. Quebec has always wanted to do things their way - Healthcare, Education, Language.....these are all Provincial juristictions and Harper is OK with just "staying out of their way". In addition, Harper recognized Quebec as a Nation within a united Canada. He's also negotiating to offset their past harmonization of the GST. Duceppe really had nothing to complain about and when all is said and done, that's what Quebec is entitled to - their fair share of money to spread as they see fit within the envelopes of Provincial Juristiction. Anyone who visits Quebec or has lived there knows that things are different. So.....with nothing to complain about - a hands-off Federal Government - what will Marois be able to sell with a sovereignty approach? A separate army? Trying to survive alone within an ocean of North American Anglophones? The tide has turned and will continue as long as the ROC can recognize Quebec's desire to be "different" and with the Bloc marginalized, the whining and pandering will start to recede.

[Tilter]

This past election has produced, for the first time since the 1917 Borden Coalition election, a majority government whose caucus does not depend on Quebec MP's for it's majority position. The CPC has 167 MP's, with 155 being needed for a majority. Only 6 or 7, I forget which, are from Quebec. And the PM is, depending on how you define him, either an Albertan or Ontarian, whose first language is definitely English. Compared to other PM's he has shown a relatively minor interest in pandering to Quebec.

Think about it. Chretien, Mulroney, Trudeau and St. Laurent were Quebeckers, and had large Quebec contingents as part of their caucuses. Diefenbaker and King, though not from Quebec, depended upon their Quebec MP's for majority status, at least for most of their mandates. Before Borden, Laurier was of course a Quebecker. Thus, with the exception of Borden, the current situation is unique in modern times.

Switch screens to the next Quebec election, due within, I believe, the next 18 months. Quebec's Liberals are, from all appearances, unpopular. How will the likely PQ government react? I doubt they'll attempt a "Clarity Act" referendum. Will they just sit their and govern, or do something extreme?

Thoughts?

In the next provincial election Que will follow the lead of the Feds &, to their great sorrow & increasing debt, go NDP. This will bring the nationalists out in great numbers who in the next 5 years, inaugurate a Quebec Libre party & push for a referendum/national election leaving Canada forever--- or so I hope, & freeing the Quebecaide money to enrich the rest of Canada. They will then beg for aid from Canada, the UN the UN monetary fund and lastly, France who will, after advocating separation for Que will snub their offer and as the French government will consist mostly of Hibab wearing officers, send massive aid to the Palistinians.

Of course, all this can be blamed on the absentee MP wh :lol: o will spend her elected time as a Holdem, dealer in Vegas.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Tilter

[Triple M]

RB Bennett didn't rely on members from Quebec as well if I'm not mistaken.

[Scotty]

A French speaker should not expect services in French in Vancouver any more than an English-speaker ought to expect English-language services in Quebec City. It's just too expensive.

It doesn't need to be all that expensive. You don't need to have the entire office be bilingual, only one person on duty at any given time, and only in offices with public contact.

Where we run into expenses is the idiotic 'language of work' amendment the Chretienites put through, which says that every employee has the right to work in the language of his or her choice. So if you hire one francophone to provide bilingual services in Vancouver, you have to hire a manager for him that's bilingual, and HR staff, and Clerical staff, and IT staff and security, etc. etc., who can all communicate with him in French. Even though, of course, he's bilingual.

[Bonam]

One of the contributing reasons for the fall of the Bloc has gone mostly uncovered in the media. That is.....the Harper government gave Duceppe very little of substance to complain about. Harper respects Provincial juristictions - much more so than the paternalistic approach of Liberal governments - which served to inflame Quebec. Quebec has always wanted to do things their way - Healthcare, Education, Language.....these are all Provincial juristictions and Harper is OK with just "staying out of their way". In addition, Harper recognized Quebec as a Nation within a united Canada. He's also negotiating to offset their past harmonization of the GST. Duceppe really had nothing to complain about and when all is said and done, that's what Quebec is entitled to - their fair share of money to spread as they see fit within the envelopes of Provincial Juristiction.

I'm not sure I buy this particular explanation. If Quebec really was happy with Harper's approach, you'd think he woulda won some more votes there. Instead, Quebec shifted completely to the NDP.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Bonam

[Evening Star]

Yeah, even prominent Conservatives lost their seats in QC.